4 ms·

I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. Human minds and AI minds have radically different architectures, and therefore have diff

I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. Human minds and AI minds have radically different architectures, and therefore have different strengths and weaknesses. IQ is only one component of what allows a typical worker to do their job. Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean that any other human with an equal or greater IQ can also do that job effectively.

rowanG077 2y ago
This is it. Another primary example is that I can put a 80 IQ person to work on a farm or let them build something under supervision. There is no way for an AI to do either at this time, even if the AI is much smarter.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Ah, AI have been doing both farm work and "building things under supervision" work for a while now. Robots are a thing, AI controlling robots is a thing.
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    Robots at this point are specialized for a highly specific task. None of them are as dynamically deployable as a 80 IQ person. You can let a walk around a construction site doing whatever, no such robot is available right now. If I'm wrong please post where I can buy such a general robot.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Robots are hardware, AI is software, so in principle you can put any AI in charge of any robot. A quick google got me this list of current uses, I'd suggest you can skim the first part as it will be clear when you get to the actual examples: https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots (But disregard Atlas, IIRC Boston Dynamics don't sell that, only the robot dogs? But you didn't actually ask for a humanoid, so you can have the dogs as a replacement). I've seen demos from Agility before this: https://agilityrobotics.com/ https://agilityrobotics.com/ Likewise Figure being tested in BMW: https://www.figure.ai/ https://www.figure.ai/ And are you really sure about what it means to be an IQ 80 human? Because that's where people start having problems reading plans, safety instructions, timesheets etc., or following multi-step instructions, handling unexpected situations.
      - rowanG077 2y ago
        A robot is not only hardware. A robot is hardware and software. The robots in the links you posted are either not commercially available or not capable of working in an unrestricted construction environment. Such an environment do require a humanoid frame at this time because the entire world is geared to that. I agree that a few show promising demos, but that's not what I would "available". Perhaps I should have been more clear. Unless I(As in some rando corporation) can go out and buy it I don't consider it available.
ben_w 2y ago
> I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. I agree, but it's difficult to fully describe the impact of a tech where $5 gets you the ability to do arithmetic faster than literally every human combined even if we were all working at the speed of the current world record holder, yet simultaneously it took a billion dollar research team 14 years to figure out how to get a robot to reliably tie its own shoelaces (this September: https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/advances-in-robot-dexterity/ https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/advances-in-robot-dext...) So, IQ it is. Rough guide for a human equivalent intelligence scale, but being mapped to a wildly different architecture so that it, the different architecture, can be reasoned about. > Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean that any other human with an equal or greater IQ can also do that job effectively. Indeed, though in this case I would expect that such a human could learn any of those skills.
- danenania 2y ago
  It's difficult to fully describe, so let's just give up and use a deeply flawed benchmark? Why not try to develop benchmarks that actually work and tell us something useful instead? The key issue is that there is no result an AI can achieve on a standard IQ test which guarantees that same AI can do any task at a superhuman level, apart from taking IQ tests. Can an LLM that scores 250 replace a human driver? Who knows? Can it replace a senior software engineer? Who knows? Can it replace a manual laborer? Again, who can say? We know a human with a 250 IQ can do all those things, but with an AI we have no idea, because those tasks have many more inputs than IQ. Rather than IQ, which tells us almost nothing concrete, I think we should focus on what tasks it can actually achieve. What's a Waymo's IQ? Who cares?! I don't care about its IQ. I care about its ability to drive me safely across the city. Similarly, I don't care whether a coding AI can drive a car or write great novels. Of course it's interesting to measure and speculate about IQ as it relates to AGI, but I think it gives people the very mistaken impression that we are on some kind of linear path where all we need to do is keep pushing up a single all-important number.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rowanG077 2y ago

This is it. Another primary example is that I can put a 80 IQ person to work on a farm or let them build something under supervision. There is no way for an AI to do either at this time, even if the AI is much smarter.

ben_w 2y ago
Ah, AI have been doing both farm work and "building things under supervision" work for a while now. Robots are a thing, AI controlling robots is a thing.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  Robots at this point are specialized for a highly specific task. None of them are as dynamically deployable as a 80 IQ person. You can let a walk around a construction site doing whatever, no such robot is available right now. If I'm wrong please post where I can buy such a general robot.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Robots are hardware, AI is software, so in principle you can put any AI in charge of any robot. A quick google got me this list of current uses, I'd suggest you can skim the first part as it will be clear when you get to the actual examples: https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots https://builtin.com/robotics/humanoid-robots (But disregard Atlas, IIRC Boston Dynamics don't sell that, only the robot dogs? But you didn't actually ask for a humanoid, so you can have the dogs as a replacement). I've seen demos from Agility before this: https://agilityrobotics.com/ https://agilityrobotics.com/ Likewise Figure being tested in BMW: https://www.figure.ai/ https://www.figure.ai/ And are you really sure about what it means to be an IQ 80 human? Because that's where people start having problems reading plans, safety instructions, timesheets etc., or following multi-step instructions, handling unexpected situations.
    - rowanG077 2y ago
      A robot is not only hardware. A robot is hardware and software. The robots in the links you posted are either not commercially available or not capable of working in an unrestricted construction environment. Such an environment do require a humanoid frame at this time because the entire world is geared to that. I agree that a few show promising demos, but that's not what I would "available". Perhaps I should have been more clear. Unless I(As in some rando corporation) can go out and buy it I don't consider it available.

ben_w 2y ago

> I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. I agree, but it's difficult to fully describe the impact of a tech where $5 gets you the ability to do arithmetic faster than literally every human combined even if we were all working at the speed of the current world record holder, yet simultaneously it took a billion dollar research team 14 years to figure out how to get a robot to reliably tie its own shoelaces (this September: https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/advances-in-robot-dexterity/ https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/advances-in-robot-dext...) So, IQ it is. Rough guide for a human equivalent intelligence scale, but being mapped to a wildly different architecture so that it, the different architecture, can be reasoned about. > Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean that any other human with an equal or greater IQ can also do that job effectively. Indeed, though in this case I would expect that such a human could learn any of those skills.

danenania 2y ago
It's difficult to fully describe, so let's just give up and use a deeply flawed benchmark? Why not try to develop benchmarks that actually work and tell us something useful instead? The key issue is that there is no result an AI can achieve on a standard IQ test which guarantees that same AI can do any task at a superhuman level, apart from taking IQ tests. Can an LLM that scores 250 replace a human driver? Who knows? Can it replace a senior software engineer? Who knows? Can it replace a manual laborer? Again, who can say? We know a human with a 250 IQ can do all those things, but with an AI we have no idea, because those tasks have many more inputs than IQ. Rather than IQ, which tells us almost nothing concrete, I think we should focus on what tasks it can actually achieve. What's a Waymo's IQ? Who cares?! I don't care about its IQ. I care about its ability to drive me safely across the city. Similarly, I don't care whether a coding AI can drive a car or write great novels. Of course it's interesting to measure and speculate about IQ as it relates to AGI, but I think it gives people the very mistaken impression that we are on some kind of linear path where all we need to do is keep pushing up a single all-important number.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]